Mac Pro petition gains traction as pro users seek information

1567810

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 211
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Marvin wrote: »
    There are a couple of benchmarks but it shows in real games too. Here is a 7970M playing Skyrim at Ultra 1080p:

    50-60fps
    Here is a GTX 680 on Ultra:

    It also gets 50-60 fps.
    The GTX 680 will benchmark higher but in terms of gaming, small variations under even 50% difference are not really noticeable. 15% would mean 7970M = 50fps, GTX 680 = 57fps. Even the lower card in the new iMac (7770M or whatever), if it's as much a 50% difference, you just lower a few settings.
    For those of us that don't care about games the other significant issue is OpenCL support. AMD seems to do much better here, especially double precision.
    All those things run fine on all their other computers. OSX Server runs on a Mini Server and uses a fraction of the power of a Mac Pro Server. FCPX uses OpenCL so will use the large compute performance of the 7970M to at least double the performance of the quad-i7.
    This makes it equivalent to an 8-core or maybe even 12-core Pro without GPU OpenCL.
    Not really, OpenCL on a GPU is only valuable for the problem sets that map nicely onto today's GPUs. Even though it is called General Purpose Computing on a GPU does not actually mean that a GPU can run all threads effectively.
    Obviously a Mac Pro would also have GPU OpenCL but that would be Apple competing with itself. Relative to Avid on a PC Xeon workstation, FCPX on an iMac will offer far better performance per dollar.
    That's where Apple makes a statement. Outperforming the competition with a larger, more expensive workstation is expected. When they can do it with something cheaper in the form factor of a display, that's impressive.
    It is only impressive to iMac iFans. In otherwords those that deny the iMacs real limitations.
    You can buy a Thunderbolt to fibre-channel adaptor.
    Why would any rational person want such a device? Seriously it just adds to desktop clutter, adds more expensive cables subject to faults and is otherwise of reduced reliability.
    Ah yeah, there are kits with 16GB dimms. They are quite expensive at $1850 for 128GB, $1400 for 96GB but the prices will drop over time. Again though, this is only meaningful for people who need more than 32GB of RAM. How many people are we talking about here? Plus, Ivy Bridge iMacs might support 16GB dimms.

    RAM is an interesting thing here. You have a very wide range of users that must be accommodated. As such and Mac Pro replacement must take into account a wide range of uses. Ideally these boxes should support as much RAM as intel hardware allows. The real issue here is that Apples base configurations are so stingy with RAM almost all users need an upgrade. The Mac Pro or it's replacement, ought to start out with a base configuration of 8GB, which in reality isn't a lot of RAM these days.

    In any event what I'm looking for from Apple, with the coming product releases, is that they debut machines that look forward and not backward. I really don't care if we are talking about the iMac, Mini or Pro, they need to put as much innovation into these machines as goes into the laptops.
  • Reply 182 of 211
    mike fixmike fix Posts: 270member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    Which model of Mac Pro are you planning on buying?


     


    I'm in the market for the fastest Mac Pro they come out with.  But it has to be on par with the competing PCs.  Fastest duel 8 core xeon processors available.  I'm looking to spend between $8-$10k.

  • Reply 183 of 211
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dragit View Post


    Can someone please help me connect my $10,000 SAS Raid array to an iMac? Or should I just throw out any gear that isn't supported by "thunderbolt"?



     


    You mean like this?  Thank you drive thru.  http://attotech.com/products/product.php?scat=31&sku=TLSH-1068-D00

  • Reply 184 of 211
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    wizard69 wrote:
    Not really, OpenCL on a GPU is only valuable for the problem sets that map nicely onto today's GPUs. Even though it is called General Purpose Computing on a GPU does not actually mean that a GPU can run all threads effectively.

    For the tasks that do use it effectively though like video applications, the gains should be very significant. It will become more obvious when GPUs get to share memory with the CPU, which is coming with the new GPUs.
    Why would any rational person want such a device? Seriously it just adds to desktop clutter, adds more expensive cables subject to faults and is otherwise of reduced reliability.

    The guy blew $10k on a giant SAS RAID array, I doubt desktop clutter is an issue. It can go on the floor if you like, it's only an adaptor box:



    The question is not about how elegant the solution is but rather could Apple even discontinue the Mac Pro without abandoning lots of users. The answer is yes as there are solutions for everything now over Thunderbolt.

    Whether people like it or not, laptops now make up the vast majority of computer sales. People don't want towers any more and the majority will dictate how we connect high speed peripherals.
    RAM is an interesting thing here. You have a very wide range of users that must be accommodated. As such and Mac Pro replacement must take into account a wide range of uses.

    It depends, the supported range of users is debatable. The Mac Pro already doesn't cover every usage scenario. I doubt it matters if they support more than 32GB in their future machines. As I say, the iMac may support 16GB DIMMs at some point allowing 64GB. When we get ReRAM, we get unlimited RAM anyway.

    It's not good enough to look at this year's machines to tell what's going to happen, look at what the Mini and iMac will be in 2, 5, 10 years time and compare them with what we can already do. Somewhere in that time frame the Mac Pro becomes worthless.

    It doesn't matter if it gets 100 processors, at best it will be 3x faster than the iMac and it won't be because the thermal densities of the chips due to the smaller fabs are dictating lower voltages so smaller form factors have to become the norm.
    mike fix wrote:
    I'm in the market for the fastest Mac Pro they come out with. But it has to be on par with the competing PCs. Fastest duel 8 core xeon processors available. I'm looking to spend between $8-$10k.

    Well that's not going to happen so you may as well buy a PC. Apple doesn't use the fastest Xeons, they always top out around $1400 per chip.
  • Reply 185 of 211


    I too would like to see an update to the Mac Pro line sometime soon. Unfortunately an iMac just won't cut it for my work either...

    I am exited about the possibilities of Thunderbolt, for mobile work in the field, or in addition to the expansion options of a Mac Pro. But Thunderbolt in its current revision seems to be just not there yet (from what I understand)?

    The biggest limitation for me right now being GPUs, they seem to be completely unsupported by Mac OS X, hopefully something Apple would like to fix in the future, but one of the deal breakers.

  • Reply 186 of 211
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    The guy blew $10k on a giant SAS RAID array, I doubt desktop clutter is an issue. It can go on the floor if you like, it's only an adaptor box:



    The question is not about how elegant the solution is but rather could Apple even discontinue the Mac Pro without abandoning lots of users. The answer is yes as there are solutions for everything now over Thunderbolt.

    Whether people like it or not, laptops now make up the vast majority of computer sales. People don't want towers any more and the majority will dictate how we connect high speed peripherals.

    .



    Arrr.. Marvin. I think you just like gadgets, not that there's anything wrong with that. If they do cancel  the mac pro, it'll be several years before we see the real impact. If people own them for work, upgrades are often dictated by when the new thing can do something that wasn't feasible on the old one. The idea that 10% more computing power results in a 10% gain in efficiency is just an old myth.

  • Reply 187 of 211

     All the chronometers 


    <a href="http://www.fakechanelbags.org.uk/chanel-handbags-shoulder-bags-c-1_7.html">chanel shoulder bags</a> work perfectly and the hack mechanism (of the watch stopping when the time adjust pin is pulled out) is the same as the real watch.In the world of Rolex replica watches, there are many players. Many of them sell decently good replica Rolex watches. But the best of the lot come from the manufacturing and warehousing facilities of our site The best selling Rolex replica <a href="http://www.chanelreplicasbags.net">fake chanel</a>


     range is an illustration of the same. Each replica Rolex watch sold on our site is an exact replica of the original, in all aspects – physical and functional. And each Rolex replica watch has also been reviewed by the replica watches reviews <a href="http://www.chanelreplicahanbags.me.uk">chanel replica</a> team and only those watches that have passed with flying colors have come out onto the display cases.One illustration of how good a replica this Rolex Datejust Replica watches watch is can be understood by the fact that each of the watches from this collection is atleast 50 metres water resistant!This would be the perfect gift to any man, and as the gifting season is upon us, <a href="http://www.rolexsreplicas.com">rolex replicas</a> think of who in your list would suit this watch!
  • Reply 188 of 211
    The question is that
    chanel shoulder bags why people consider buying Rolex Replica watches even they are mirrored design and shape of original pieces, the answers can be given in three sentences.They provide the same comfort as the original time pieces, they come handy when there is urgent need to wear a classic item complementing the outfit, and above all they are inexpensive yet stylish. The chanel bags need for a Rolex replica watch is stem from the facts that not all people have financial freedom to opt for high end and expensive masterpieces, and why they should feel going for expensive luxury items when alternate is present and with much more scores of comfort.Instead chanel bag of spending hundreds to thousands of dollars of expensive branded watches the wise decision is go for Rolex replica watches that help you save money on your purchase. Additionally, you get diverse varieties, designs, styles, colors, and shapes in Rolex replica, if you rolex replicas are to pick one for night function, it requires only few second to make the right choice. You get what you pay for;
  • Reply 189 of 211


    No they don't not when you need pcie slots to run advance accelerators cards or dsp's cards systems.

     

  • Reply 190 of 211
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    hmm wrote: »
    The idea that 10% more computing power results in a 10% gain in efficiency is just an old myth.

    The misconception is that there is a set 1:1 ratio between performance and productivity. While the average user will not gain any additional benefit from a much faster machine there are certainly plenty of scenarios where a faster machine could increase productivity well beyond the percentage of performance gain over their previous system. I hope that all that are wanting a new Mac Pro would fall into this camp.
  • Reply 191 of 211
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Emmanuel Chayer View Post


    No they don't not when you need pcie slots to run advance accelerators cards or dsp's cards systems.

     





    Except there are external solutions for that.  Next.

  • Reply 192 of 211
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    The misconception is that there is a set 1:1 ratio between performance and productivity. While the average user will not gain any additional benefit from a much faster machine there are certainly plenty of scenarios where a faster machine could increase productivity well beyond the percentage of performance gain over their previous system. I hope that all that are wanting a new Mac Pro would fall into this camp.


    I think it's a little divided. Overall it's also normal not to wish to buy on what seems like the end of a cycle missing out on potentially updated features including optimizations for gpu computation and an extended support life. Something I've tried to explain when the complaint comes up that mac pro users don't necessarily upgrade all the time is that the upgrade needs to address newer problems or improve efficiency, not just look faster on paper. Either computing needs have grown via larger files or software updates, or the prior machine had performance compromises that can be alleviated by the new one. I think you're 100% aware what I mean here :P (I miss working emoticons). Also I agree with your point. If it makes the difference between choking slightly and nice smooth performance, that can be a great improvement in efficiency.


     


    I've become a little snappy on the topic, because it gets annoying reading cases for a mac pro cancellation that are full of factual problems. Imac should get a 6 core. Good luck with that given that Sandy Bridge E is 130W and Ivy Bridge E is next year. Thunderbolt could make a supercomputer out of mac minis. Yes... a port type with no switch system that is limited to 7 devices chained by a serial PCI bridge connection. No one should need more than an imac. 16GB of ram is overkill. 


     


    I should photoshop a fake degree in "armchair engineering" just to post as a response to some of these concepts (hehe). 

  • Reply 193 of 211

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post




    Except there are external solutions for that.  Next.



     


     


    At what cost, most of those will cost as much as a mac pro (if we're talking of magma chassis with enough pcie slots).  Thunderbolt is still not as fast as pcie 2 imagine now.. pcie 3 mobos are coming out on the market. You want to pass video and mass audio.. we're not talking of a stereo track here, but we in the audio fields work with hundreds of tracks at the same time at either 44.1, 48, 88.1 96 and some of us even at 192khz sampling and 32 bit depth and you want to tell us that something that isn't as powerful than the current pcie 2 will benefit us? come on, stop kidding yourself.

     


    It's all good and dandy to have 10Gbps (gigabits per second) each way, but even a pcie 2 16x can easily out perform this (500MBytes seacond each way = roughly 1 GigaBytes per lane) vs thunderbolts which is Gigabits only equals to 1280MegaBytes so only 1.25 GigaBytes each ways total. Pcie 2 is roughly 16 times more powerful, and you want to tell me that thunderbolt will be able to handle what can be thrown at it in the professional video and audio industry? Why settle for less? Sure thunderbolt can have a good usage in the consumers world, but in the professional world, it won't hold up.

  • Reply 194 of 211
    mjteixmjteix Posts: 563member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    The question is not about how elegant the solution is but rather could Apple even discontinue the Mac Pro without abandoning lots of users. The answer is yes as there are solutions for everything now over Thunderbolt.

     


     





    • Joined: Apr 2003


    • Posts: 943


    • offline


    •  






    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Emmanuel Chayer View Post


    No they don't not when you need pcie slots to run advance accelerators cards or dsp's cards systems.

     





    Except there are external solutions for that.  Next.



    Except there aren't.


     


    That shows how much you both are deconnected. Maybe you should take a walk in the real world from time to time.


    The fact that Thunderbolt-to-PCIe enclosures exist doesn't mean there are working solutions for everything.


     


    The first step would be to visit the Magma/Thunderbolt page, for the very last info on drivers (for those who don't know, Magma is THE reference in xxxxx-to-PCIe enclosures):


    Quote:


    Mac: MacOS drivers must be modified to work with Thunderbolt to PCIe Expansion. Driver writers can access the Thunderbolt Device Driver Programming Guide online at Mac OS X Developer Library. Use this list to determine if your PCIe card has a modified driver that supports Thunderbolt features, like Hot-swap and sleep support.




    So in reality, there are a dozen drivers working on Mac OS, and another dozen "in development". Not one graphics card driver is listed. If you call that solutions for everything, you're self-deluded.


     


    On the other hand:


    Quote:


    Windows: While most Windows drivers have worked out-of-the-box, be sure to follow the driver guidelines from Intel for optimum performance under Windows.




    That hurts even more, since very few PC manufacturers are behind Thunderbolt, but they are very well prepared. In reality, a PC with Thunderbolt is a better alternative to computers with slots than any Mac. And Apple had one year exclusivity. What a shame.


     


    The fact is: implementing Thunderbolt is not that simple, another proof of that is the multiple firmware/software updates Apple released for all Macs with Thunderbolt last year, and the slow pace at which Thunderbolt devices have been made available on Mac (since PCs with Thunderbolt are not really available yet). Things taken for granted by some people on this forum, like X-grid over Thunderbolt, are yet to be evaluated, let alone in development.


     


    No matter what you think, performance is still an issue. Even if a Thunderbolt controller is connected to the cpu via 4 PCIe 2.0 lanes, the two 10Gb/s channels cannot be aggregated so, in reality, Thunderbolt offers something like two x2 PCIe 2.0 slots. That means that the cards that may work in a Thunderbolt-to-PCIe enclosure would communicate at x2 speed max. no matter if they are x4, x8 or x16 capable. It may be a compromise YOU can make, but many would not. The other thing is that optical Thunderbolt is not faster, it just allows longer cables. Intel plans to speedbump Thunderbolt in 2014/2015, it should also fully support DP 1.2 by then (another weakness of the current version).


     


    Then there will still be the cost of things, at $1,000 for a good Thunderbolt-to-PCIe enclosure (Magma ExpressBox 3T), it may make many stop and think.


     


    Keeping the MP or not in the line-up is not a question of elegance, number of users that would be pissed off or contribution to the bottom line, it's about image. Does Apple still want to be that company that brings so much to many high-end markets (high education, science and technology, creative, video and music industries,...) or not? 


     


    With the consumer desktop Core i7 topping at QC 3.5GHz and $332, and the Xeon E5-1600 starting at QC 3.6GHz and $294, a MP with that cpu and a few improvements would be much more attractive than the previous Nehalem models (compared to the high-end iMac). IMO, Apple blew it with the Nehalem MP models from the start, too expensive, not enough improvements, no updates even if faster cpus/gpus were available last year (at least for certain models). If they are not happy with the state of the MP, it's entirely their fault, but they can easily and quickly change that with Sandy Bridge Xeon models.


     


    Next.

  • Reply 195 of 211
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    It's all good and dandy to have 10Gbps (gigabits per second) each way, but even a pcie 2 16x can easily out perform this. Pcie 2 is roughly 16 times more powerful, and you want to tell me that thunderbolt will be able to handle what can be thrown at it in the professional video and audio industry? Why settle for less? Sure thunderbolt can have a good usage in the consumers world, but in the professional world, it won't hold up.

    You mean using audio cards that need a single PCI lane (2.5Gbps) like this one that works in the Thunderbolt box:

    http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_hdspe_aes.php

    or this x1 $5000+ DSP card:

    http://www.uaudio.com/uad-plug-ins/pcie/uad-2-quad-omni-6.html

    People just assume that because the slots are there and are a certain speed that someone must be using that speed. Data IO isn't high bandwidth as it depends on the source and destination read/write. Real-time graphics is high bandwidth but you can get away with a single high-end card in an x16 slot and many display outputs and they still work ok in x4 slots.
    mjteix wrote:
    The fact that Thunderbolt-to-PCIe enclosures exist doesn't mean there are working solutions for everything.

    There are compatible solutions for eveything you need to use PCI for. The driver issue probably has something to do with the fact that Thunderbolt is supposed to be plug and play. Windows doesn't have plug and play support yet - you have to have Thunderbolt peripherals plugged in at boot time.

    Plug and play is a big advantage of Thunderbolt over PCIe slots. Musicians can take a laptop somewhere and plug it in without rebooting. Unplug and they have everything there to edit on the go.

    Some peripherals are expensive. The Sonnet PCI box is cheaper despite the cheap one only having 1 PCI slot but people aren't questioning the $4000 price tag on a capture card. The ideal is not that you'd use an external PCI slot, the ideal is that manufacturers put a Thunderbolt port on their products, the PCI box is a backup.

    It will be hard for some to accept but the potential Thunderbolt market size is much bigger than the workstation market. It won't happen overnight but now that some PC manufacturers are getting on board, it will get things moving a bit faster. Manufacturers can make nice products instead of raw boards.

    The tech is only about 15 months old. This always happens with new developments. People who want to stick to the old ways try and put it down. It's not just that it's inadequate, people just don't want to face the prospect of towers going away so attempt to pick out essential items that mean it can never happen. PCI slots were developed to give people fast enough expansion on the widest selling machines - demand + volume = profit. Desktop towers are no longer the widest selling machines by a long way and the people who need PCI cards much less than that. The demand + volume is now in the mobile sector and that is the domain of Thunderbolt, that is something people are going to have to come to terms with.

    300
  • Reply 196 of 211
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    It's all good and dandy to have 10Gbps (gigabits per second) each way, but even a pcie 2 16x can easily out perform this (500MBytes seacond each way = roughly 1 GigaBytes per lane) vs thunderbolts which is Gigabits only equals to 1280MegaBytes so only 1.25 GigaBytes each ways total. Pcie 2 is roughly 16 times more powerful, and you want to tell me that thunderbolt will be able to handle what can be thrown at it in the professional video and audio industry? Why settle for less? Sure thunderbolt can have a good usage in the consumers world, but in the professional world, it won't hold up.

    You lost me. Are you under the impression that notebooks — the most commonly selling machine and by a large margin — have PCIe slots in them, or are you suggesting that by including Thunderbolt that PCIe in desktop PCs will have to be removed? You also seem to be suggesting that professionals don't use notebooks... ever!

    From what I can see there are no downsides to this technology existing. It's like you that a USB flash drive sucks because a internal 3.5" HDD could hold a lot more data and is much cheaper per GB. Surely you see there are reasons why a USB flash drive would have a very real utility.
  • Reply 197 of 211

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    There are compatible solutions for eveything you need to use PCI for. The driver issue probably has something to do with the fact that Thunderbolt is supposed to be plug and play. Windows doesn't have plug and play support yet - you have to have Thunderbolt peripherals plugged in at boot time.

     


    But there isn't any solution for external GPUs yet it seems? The Magma guys themselves have previously said that the problem is at the OS level regarding Macs and Thunderbolt, and they don't see Apple fixing it in the too near future...

    So, no option for CUDA GPUs, or any additional GPU for that matter.



    Also for me, it seems that RAID controllers will be an issue. I know that the Magma guys are working to get a compatible driver for the ATTO R680 working, which will be great.

    But whenever I've had to run controllers from a 4X slot, the decrease in speed / performance has been quite noticeable.

    From what I've read, running a RAID controller over Thunderbolt will be similar?



    Not trying to be the complaining minority, I'm definitely excited about new innovations. But I am concerned about how my work gets done  ^_^;

  • Reply 198 of 211
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    But there isn't any solution for external GPUs yet it seems? The Magma guys themselves have previously said that the problem is at the OS level regarding Macs and Thunderbolt, and they don't see Apple fixing it in the too near future...

    So, no option for CUDA GPUs, or any additional GPU for that matter.

    The Mac needs specific drivers as well as EFI GPUs. If you plug a 7970 into a Mac Pro, you can't use it on the Mac side either:

    http://www.tonymacx86.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=45671&sid=678afd2fbd8e65a9d073d2ff554feee4&start=30

    nVidia and AMD could offer Thunderbolt solutions if they wanted to (knowing their history with Intel, they probably won't though) or maybe someone can hack the drivers of currently supported cards.
    Also for me, it seems that RAID controllers will be an issue. I know that the Magma guys are working to get a compatible driver for the ATTO R680 working, which will be great.

    But whenever I've had to run controllers from a 4X slot, the decrease in speed / performance has been quite noticeable.

    From what I've read, running a RAID controller over Thunderbolt will be similar?

    Not trying to be the complaining minority, I'm definitely excited about new innovations. But I am concerned about how my work gets done  ^_^;

    Would you really use a Thunderbolt RAID controller externally in that case? You'd surely connect Thunderbolt to something like fibre-channel and connect it to a server or storage that had internal hardware RAID. This is server tech and is not primarily Apple's domain any more.
  • Reply 199 of 211
    mjteixmjteix Posts: 563member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    There are compatible solutions for eveything you need to use PCI for.


    You're full of it, Marvin. Now that "solutions for everything" doesn't work, you're adding "compatible" to your shit.


     


    And you're using examples you know nothing about. The UAD-2 Quad only costs $1500, the $5000 price tag is for the bundle of plug-ins included.


     


    And again, it's not because a couple of audio cards and one DSP card work in a Thunderbolt environment that the pro audio market is covered. 


     


    At least you're adding also some "probably" in your sentences, but at the same time you go on a psycheledic journey about plug-and play which has nothing to do with the subject: plug-and-play or not, today, there aren't solutions for eveything over Thunderbolt. There are not a lot of Thunderbolt devices, and the Thunderbolt-to-PCIe enclosures are far from offering a working solution for existing PCIe cards. 


     


     


    Quote:


    Unplug and they have everything there to edit on the go.



    You can't really make good edits on the go. Unplug and you've lost your (high-end) audio converter (relying solely on the Mac's poor quality audio chip), and you've lost your DSP plug-ins, bypassing lots of the processing you've been using (and bought the cards for) and you're listening to the tracks mostly dry. You can't make good edits if you're not listening to the real content, to the tracks the way you recorded them.


     


    Quote:


    Real-time graphics is high bandwidth but you can get away with a single high-end card in an x16 slot and many display outputs and they still work ok in x4 slots.



    That's true, but it would be nice if Thunderbolt offered x4 speeds. It doesn't.


     


    Quote:


    It won't happen overnight



    Now, see, you can be serious at times. So instead of saying that there are solutions for eveything today, you could have said: someday there will be solutions for eveything with Thunderbolt. We may have believed you.


     


     


    Quote:


    People who want to stick to the old ways try and put it down. 



    You really don't know me. I've been a huge fan of Thunderbolt since the early days, and I've been proactive in the domain for devices like the thunderbolt version of Universal Audio's Apollo Interface/DSP combo box. That's the kind of improvement that Thunderbolt can offer in the midrange, smaller suites. That doesn't beat a Mac Pro with the number of I/O's and/or DSP cards you need, all working at full speed, but it's a good, compact and (relatively) inexpensive solution.


     


    But I'm not a huge fan of your speculations, that's for sure.


     


    Quote:


    The demand + volume is now in the mobile sector and that is the domain of Thunderbolt,



    Wow. Even Intel didn't know that! The domain of Thunderbolt is the mobile sector! You're confusing consumer (and even adding the prosumer) market with the professional market. Nobody in is right mind will use a laptop and a bunch of external boxes in a recording studio (or any professional setting) when a Mac Pro offers a more powerful, elegant, reliable solution. Not everything makes sense/needs to be mobile/portable. Would your first choice for a data server be a laptop?


     


    In any case, my impression was that demand + volume was in the smartphone and tablet sector.


     



    Quote:


    Desktop towers are no longer the widest selling machines by a long way 



    Really? What does that have to do with the subject? Even if you're right about the desktop towers, that doesn't make the Thunderbolt-to-PCIe enclosures better, have more/reliable drivers for PCIe cards or offer solutions for everything in a Mac environment.


     


     


    Quote:


    maybe someone can hack the drivers of currently supported cards



    So that's your solution: hacking the drivers... how professional.


     


    127807469111430x433.jpg

  • Reply 200 of 211

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    The Mac needs specific drivers as well as EFI GPUs. If you plug a 7970 into a Mac Pro, you can't use it on the Mac side either:

    http://www.tonymacx86.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=45671&sid=678afd2fbd8e65a9d073d2ff554feee4&start=30

    nVidia and AMD could offer Thunderbolt solutions if they wanted to (knowing their history with Intel, they probably won't though) or maybe someone can hack the drivers of currently supported cards.


     


    No this isn't about EFI or driver issues, apparently if you try to use any GPU, 100% supported by Apple, in a Thunderbolt to PCIe enclosure it will not work.

    The Magma guys themselves stated on their website a couple of months ago that problem is at the OS level and no amount of driver hacking etc. will make the system recognise the card.

    Maybe Apple will fix this, but no signs so far...

     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



    Would you really use a Thunderbolt RAID controller externally in that case? You'd surely connect Thunderbolt to something like fibre-channel and connect it to a server or storage that had internal hardware RAID. This is server tech and is not primarily Apple's domain any more.




    I guess that answers my question, no you wouldn't use a RAID controller in one of those Thunderbolt cases...

    But I'm not referring to shared storage, but fast RAID storage for one workstation with a dedicated controller, again there doesn't seem to be a solution available?





    I'm not trying to find faults in Thunderbolt solutions out there to be some kind of die hard 'pro' user clinging to what some may see as old technology.

    I'm trying to imagine what would happen if the Mac Pro was EOL'd tomorrow and the iMac was the only Apple alternative for my work, so far it doesn't look too good...

Sign In or Register to comment.